Report of the Office of the Ombudsman 1992-1995

A Three-Year Report by David J. DeLaura, University Ombudsman

During the 1992-93 academic year a total of 250 members of the
University community came to the Ombudsman's office; 280 came in 1993-
94, and 268 in 1994-95. The cases are itemized here according to the
issues involved in the complaint, the school of the University from
which the complainant came, and the complainant's personnel category.
As in all past years, job-related issues were the principal concern of
those using the office. Such complaints range between 34% and 40% of all
cases during these three years. The next most common categories comprise
procedural irregularities in the workplace or in academic settings,
accounting together for close to 40% of the cases. The remainder are
distributed in relatively small numbers among a variety of headings.
Employment, promotion, and procedural issues frequently involve angry
harassment complaints between participants who are quite unequal in
power.

The figures recorded here, however, although similar to those
reported in recent years, do not reflect the magnitude and the serious
implications of a good many recent cases. Because this is a time of
institutional reassessment and change at Penn, we believe this is the
right moment to open a discussion of what we see, on a daily basis, as
"ailing" the University and the ways in which it conducts its business.
Our concern about a detectable and disturbing slippage in what may be
called the "personal climate" in recent years, prompts us to offer a
more pointed statement than usual, focusing on complaints that usually
arise from experiences that may be described as a hostile atmosphere in
the workplace.

We have encountered a marked and pervasive increase in managerial
irresponsibility--by which we mean the unwillingness of supervisors to
intervene in a timely and appropriate way when disputes and grievances
arise, or to be responsive to employees in harassment situations. Many
fail to acknowledge that "management" extends beyond competence in one's
primary responsibility, and must include the humane and equitable
treatment of all employees.

Arbitrary and unpredictable behavior seems to be quite acceptable
in some areas of the University. This climate of bad manners and
incivility, of indifference to the feelings and rights of others, no
doubt reflects widely noted changes in society at large. But our
experience suggests that the conduct of a significant number of
individuals, indeed of whole units, falls below the standard one expects
today in enlightened business organizations.

Increasingly, at Penn, the ethos has ceased to be one of
accountability, of doing "the right (and responsible) thing." Instead,
managers frequently decline to "become involved"; some will persist in
doing what they can get away with, or claim they have been "following
policy," when in fact they have been manipulating policy to their own
advantage. Others in effect now ask: "What is the minimum I must do to
avoid legal action or dismissal?" Yelling and abusive behavior, along
with disrespectful and sniping remarks, are obvious examples of
misbehavior. More subtle is the instinct to turn the burden back on the
complainant, saying: "What are you doing to bring this situation on
yourself?" In the academic area, and especially dealing with women
graduate students, highly variable and arbitrary and even offensive
conduct is quite common. But it is important to stress that these
passive or aggressive behaviors occur in many areas, and quite as
acutely in the non-academic units of the University.

A distinct area of irresponsible behavior is the failure to attend
to experience and qualifications in hiring. Some seem to get hired
because they are relatives or friends, or on some other subjective
basis. These are the very people who are treated preferentially, as
loyal to oneself, thus adding to the adversarial relationship that some
managers have with their other employees. We also urge employers to
assess their needs carefully when they prepare a job description for
hiring. In too many cases, the persons hired find what is expected of
them to be very different from the posted description, and are told to
"hang in there while we work things out."

Irresponsible management practices and inhumane treatment take a
heavy toll on both productivity and morale. Our strong impression is
that many competent and experienced employees are (in the words of one
observer) "giving up hope in the workplace"; indeed, employees are
losing health and sleep because of capricious and manipulative
superiors. Another consequence is the high turnover of disgusted
employees, including some of the ablest and most valuable, often in
perennially troubled areas.

Some supervisors seem unaware that some employees are in legally
protected categories. Increasingly the lack of timely and appropriate
intervention, on the part of supervisors and other University officials,
has become the subject of legal action, quite as much as the initial
complaint of harassment or unfair treatment. At risk, in this new
environment, are supervisors as well as the resources and good name of
the University.

The goal of our office is to foster an environment in which job
satisfaction is the rule, and where employees are encouraged to develop
their professional skills. Our guiding principle is that managers, who
after all set the standards of behavior, must not only pursue excellence
in their work, but also ensure humane and fair treatment of all
employees--not least, those who are most at risk and lack the means to
protest against unequal and abusive conditions. Indeed, it serves no
purpose to humiliate and belittle people, even when they misbehave.

For the most part, rules and policies are in place. And, it is
important to note, there are units in the University directed by people
who are competent and assume responsibility to make working at Penn a
rewarding experience. But personnel policies are sometimes not well
known, and often not followed conscientiously; and of course there are
no general laws regulating humane and considerate behavior.
Nevertheless, many managers seem not to realize that there is a new--and
far more litigious--climate in employer/employee relations in the 1990s
than in the past. As spectacular cases in public life have recently
shown, conduct that was allowable--or "could be gotten away with"--five
and certainly ten years ago, can no longer be defended.

The increase in inappropriate behavior--among near equals, and up
and down the ladder of authority--strongly suggests that careful
training should be given to all administrators, at every level, as they
take office, as well as updates on emergent issues. Academic and non-
academic officials need training in contemporary management practices
and in changes in their legal rights and responsibilities.

We have already begun to consult with University officials on how
to institute such training, appropriately, in the different units of the
University. In the academic area, such training is needed for deans,
chairs, and new faculty, as well as for graduate students acting as
teaching assistants and fellows in student residences.

In this new climate of expectations, we are more convinced than
ever of the importance of the Ombudsman's office, and the value of its
unique independence: we report directly to the University community. The
office is neutral and does not act as "advocate" for either party in a
dispute; instead, we seek to ensure as fair a process, and outcome, as
possible. We believe that an alert, informed, and good-faith approach to
the problems we have raised here, problems of course shared by all large
educational institutions now, will serve the interests of all parties--
supervisors, employees, and the University itself.

My colleague Dr. Gulbun O'Connor and I welcome your comments and
suggestions about these concerns and initiatives. Most practically,
anyone in the University community who would like to make use of the
Office of the Ombudsman should feel free to call 898-8261 for an
appointment.